Introduction
After the COVID-19 pandemic, public health policies, ethical considerations, and the varied cultural landscapes across American states have become crucial focal points. This study delves into the specific policies enacted at the state level in response to the pandemic, unraveling the complex interplay of ethical dimensions and the dynamic influence of cross-cultural perspectives. Additionally, this study investigates how cultural norms, societal attitudes, and government responses interact to reveal problems faced by people with disabilities during the pandemic. By examining global interventions for inclusive public health approaches, this paper aims to generate insights into how far such policies have achieved equal access to healthcare, information, and support among people with disabilities from diverse cultural backgrounds. Against historical disparities, the urgency of ensuring equitable healthcare access and treatment for vulnerable populations has never been more pronounced. This study serves as a focused lens, examining key disability-inclusive policies and simplifying cross-cultural dynamics’ ethical intricacies and profound impact. As I confront the challenges of the present crisis, this research seeks to provide more than just a snapshot of policies; it endeavors to offer a comprehensive understanding of their ethical foundations and the nuanced ways they adapt across diverse cultural contexts. Through the synthesis of state-level policies, this study aims to contribute actionable recommendations, offering a roadmap toward a more inclusive, ethical, and public health landscape.
In attempting to analyze further the ethical dilemmas presented in the PMC article, the discussion of how challenges stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic reveal frailties experienced by people with disabilities. The author deconstructs the intricacies of ethical matters, primarily highlighting crucial aspects such as the distribution of resources and discrimination in healthcare facilities. As shown in Tasnim (2021), resource apportionment became vital as healthcare systems struggled to deal with the pandemic. Vulnerable groups of people are those with disabilities, sometimes requiring special care and equipment. Sabatello et al. (2020) critique current protocols, which can inadvertently place patients with disabilities at a disadvantage position. These writings raise questions about how healthcare resources should be distributed relatively when supplies are scarce.
There is a moral requirement to revisit and reinvent these protocols to make the decision unbiased while considering each person’s distinct societal needs. However, the shadow of discrimination in healthcare environments darkens the ethical scene. (Sabatello et al., 2020). The article also presents scenarios in which people with disabilities may be discriminated against during the distribution of resources. This indicates a need for an immediate, proper, and all-inclusive framework that acknowledges and tries to address the specific challenges this group faces. It gives a sense of urgency to need an ethical framework to safeguard the rights and dignity of individuals with disabilities during a health crisis.
In addition to the coverage of ethical issues surrounding healthcare, the article by Verdugo et al. (2017) broadens the debate by considering a cross-cultural perspective on disability policy implementation. The article explains how cultural contexts shape policy development and implementation for people with disabilities. It communicates the idea that forming policy for various communities, taking into account their specific situations and personal beliefs is not only an option but a requirement. However, a look beyond the cross-cultural lens shows that singular, rigid approaches to disability policy cannot ensure equitable and practical outcomes (O’Brien et al., 2023); instead, there is a need for a nuanced understanding of cultural variations. This synthesis highlights the critical nature of understanding the intersectionality of disability, ethics, and healthcare.
Associating with the scholarly discussion developed in the PMC and EBSCOhost articles inspires consideration of whether there is an urgent need for a standardized worldwide ethical framework in health, especially when a crisis hits. The synthesis of these perspectives generates the acknowledgment that although ethical principles are universally applicable, cultural sensitivities necessitate a nuanced and adaptive approach. My contemplation prompts me to favor a finely poised balance between the general nature of ethical principles and cultural differences that surface in cross-cultural studies. When one envisions a global ethical framework, it becomes apparent that ethical guidelines cannot be static or uniform but should be dynamic and open to all the cultural differences that make up individual experiences (Smythe et al., 2022).
As a society, we must recognize how cultural backgrounds shape attitudes toward disability, ethics, and healthcare. This means that ethics should not be used as a sledgehammer but rather as an intricate device that can communicate with society’s needs and beliefs. From this perspective, fundamental principles of justice and inclusivity arise as guiding beacons (Tasnim, 2021). Justice requires that ethical frameworks be as applicable and responsive to individuals with disabilities in one corner of the globe as they are in another. Inclusivity suggests formulating policies and ethical standards considering all people’s perspectives, regardless of cultural or disability-related peculiarities. I reflect an ethically robust, culturally sensitive healthcare ethics vision in addressing these considerations. It is a clarion call to action for a paradigm shift, where societies and policymakers have to move beyond the homogeneous approach and embrace the global ethical framework that reconciles universal principles with the inherent rich diversity of what it means to be human.
The different approaches California and Texas have used to manage the COVID-19 pandemic show that their priorities are vastly contrasting, and the philosophies are also at odds. California enforced stricter measures such as mask mandates, vaccination requirements, and business closures to safeguard public health and minimize fatalities (Nwachukwu & Asuelime, 2021). Nevertheless, this strategy drew opposition from people who advocated for freedom and economic considerations. The policies entailed provisions for access, healthcare access programs, targeted vaccination policies, and information aimed at people with disabilities. However, this commitment to inclusivity and healthcare access was not just about mere policies; it also had a solid ethical foundation based on justice, fairness, and equity principles. There was close monitoring of the implementation of these policies and the ethical considerations associated with the fair distribution of resources meant to serve the needs of all children with disabilities. Moreover, the social justice perspective has also been a key consideration while evaluating fairness.
Nevertheless, Texas adopted a more lax approach that emphasized personal responsibility and mainly relied on recommendations instead of mandates (Smythe et al., 2022). This was in line with those who believed in the importance of protecting economic stability and individual freedoms, but at the same time, it was seen as an action that could worsen the spread of the virus. Its provision’s scope of services emphasized Texas’ commitment to addressing the specific needs of its disabled communities. The state approach focused on the principles of fairness, justice, and equality and how they solved the ethical dilemmas, especially allocating resources and equal access to health care for people with disabilities. The two states now take the soft approach depending on personal responsibility and accessible commodities. However, key differences remain. California cautiously recommends masking in specific settings, emphasizing vaccination and boosting (Wilson, 2022). However, Texas is trying to remove all restrictions and allow people to be responsible for themselves, which fits the current policy of minimizing the role of the government. The approach here sharply contrasts the debate over prioritizing public versus private health interests during a pandemic.
Distinct approaches to tackling the COVID-19 pandemic in California and Texas can be identified by analyzing state-level policies (Smythe et al., 2022). California aimed at flattening the curve and protecting public health through stringent lockdown measures and early adoption of mask mandates. However, Texas took a looser approach with regional discretion and more economic emphasis (Wilson, 2022). The contrasted policies show that there is always a fine line between public health and economic considerations during the decision-making process at the state level. The difference in results of these policies demonstrates their effectiveness in improving health conditions and recovery from economic downturns.
Cross-cultural perspectives have significantly influenced the development and policymaking, resulting in significantly different disability-inclusive public health measures. The influence of rich cultural diversity in crafting policies can be observed in CA and TX. In California, a state known for its cultural mosaic, Community Policy Partnerships (CA-CPP) was designed with an acute awareness of the varied needs arising from diverse cultural backgrounds (Wilson, 2022). Community engagement, which the culturally diverse groups mainly heeded, is an ingenious way of interacting between the public and governmental officials over time (Smythe et al., 2022). The local governments require this to build a cooperative agreement for the development of society based on the facility of safeguarded and resourceful contact among the representatives of diverse communities.
Disability-inclusive policies were also shaped by recognizing the influence of cross-cultural perspectives on societal practices. In executing the CA-CPP, it was understood that the California long-term care community was an amalgam of diverse cultures that formed the culture of long-term care in California. Cultural competence enabled strategic yet authentic and sustainable engagement initiatives aligned with communities’ cultural values and core principles, allowing collaboration and trust to flourish. The acceptability and awareness campaigns to push for policy implementation at different levels aimed at making disability inclusivity a socio-cultural norm. The implementation of TX-CPP in Texas demonstrated an understanding of the subtleties between different cultures. To bridge gaps and ensure genuine resonance with communities of the varied cultural spectrum in the design and execution of policies, Texas followed a deliberate process that encouraged and respected cross-cultural viewpoints and integration.
Several cross-cultural perspectives influence Texas and California’s leadership styles and consumer behaviors. This research is based on a cross-cultural analysis of the leadership style in Mexico and the United States, as Slater et al. (2002) investigated. So far, this experiment has shown how many different ways of leading exist due to the cultural factors affecting them. On top of that, those results provide insight into the leaders of Texas and California’s mixed population groups. In another study, Charter et al. (2011) examined consumer behavior within different cultures, specifically focusing on Generation Y and its attitudes toward sparkling wine. This can also be applied to understand how Texas and California people from different demographic backgrounds choose which products to consume. Consequently, by incorporating these cross-cultural insights into local policies, enterprises, and community interests, both states can improve their service delivery to meet expectations among diverse populations.
Different policies are being developed to address the cross-cultural disability gap in healthcare (Ramkissoon, 2020). This could be solved by establishing health centers at the community level operated by culturally responsive healthcare practitioners and representatives of persons with disabilities. Consequently, these hubs primarily focus on quality medical care at reasonable prices that align with cultures in various communities. Moreover, they would collaborate with local institutions and traditional healers to provide integrated medical care that attends to physical healthcare and addresses mental and spiritual dimensions. Alternatively, these hubs will take part in disability awareness campaigns and educational programs that aim at ending discrimination and ensuring adequate access to culturally acceptable environments.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) will assist in ensuring that people with disabilities do not face discrimination related to accessing medical care and the use of resources. Universal design principles and culturally sensitive communication strategies would enhance healthcare services and information availability. This proposal aims to empower the disabled community through active participation in policymaking and service delivery. The CRPD has a good order of ideas; however, it is only effective if national implementation plans are developed and implemented. Due to the significance noted by Maulana et al. (2021), it is essential to consider capacity gaps and resistance from existing powers as crucial aspects that need addressing.
Another alternative policy is to allocate resources for the training and empowering of disabled people and community leaders on advocacy skills, self-management of health conditions, and how to hold healthcare systems accountable. Such a policy also entails financing disability-led organizations to provide peer support, training, and resources to their communities, creating empowerment and collective action. The discussions of Stafford et al. (2022) form the basis for this policy. In the long-term perspective, this policy has a high probability of success. This approach aims to create sustainable change and effectively empower local communities to advocate for their needs by investing in local capacity building. However, the challenge of initial investment and overcoming potential cultural barriers to community organizing are significant challenges that must be addressed (Ramkissoon, 2020).
Conclusion
In the COVID-19 era, disability-inclusive public health policies have been looked at from cross-cultural perspectives, and it has been found that this issue is very complex due to cultural practices, different policy responses in each country, and diverse societal attitudes. Policymakers must understand culture’s intricacies to develop policies that enhance the well-being of people with disabilities. Countries need a cultural-aware, holistic effort to address persistent problems that have emerged from the pandemic and strengthen their healthcare systems. Societies can strive to make this world better for all persons living with disability by ensuring that they are not disadvantaged in global health and well-being efforts through fostering an equitable and supportive environment. A close study of CA and TX policies gives an insight into subtle differences in the approach taken by each state when drafting and implementing disability-inclusive practices. It also shows each state’s desire to remain diverse; however, one differed notably in how they intended to achieve this. It is, therefore, necessary that policies be tailored according to cultural nuances and that disability inclusion be ensured to permeate through the different cultures within each region. The implications of this research are essential for future researchers and policymakers who can benefit from these findings when deciding what to do next. To improve effectiveness, cultural dynamics must be studied in future research. Therefore, the exact interplay between culture and healthcare outcomes should be examined about the intricacies of cultural context.
References
Baby, S. A. (2022). Understanding the Rights of Women with Disabilities in Bangladesh (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago).
Das, R., Hasan, M. R., Daria, S., & Islam, M. R. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health among general Bangladeshi population: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open, 11(4), e045727.
Maulana, G., Khalilullah, K., Qanita, I., & Yufika, A. (2021). The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Literature Review. Journal of Asian Social Science Research, 3(2), 141-154.
Nwachukwu, P. T. T., & Asuelime, L. (2021). UN COVID-19 disability inclusion strategy: assessing the impact on cultural-safety and capability information approach. J Intellect Disabil Diagnosis Treat, 9(1), 29-38.
O’Brien, K. K., Brown, D. A., McDuff, K., Clair-Sullivan, N. S., Solomon, P., Carusone, S. C., … & Harding, R. (2023). Conceptualizing the episodic nature of disability among adults living with Long COVID: a qualitative study. BMJ Global Health, 8(3), e011276.
Ramkissoon, H. (2020). COVID-19 Place confinement, pro-social, pro-environmental behaviors, and residents’ wellbeing: A new conceptual framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2248.
Sabatello, M., Burke, T. B., McDonald, K. E., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2020). Disability, ethics, and health care in the COVID-19 pandemic. American journal of public health, 110(10), 1523-1527.
Smythe, T., Mabhena, T., Murahwi, S., Kujinga, T., Kuper, H., & Rusakaniko, S. (2022). A path toward disability-inclusive health in Zimbabwe Part 2: A qualitative study on the national response to COVID-19. African journal of disability, 11, 991.
Stafford, L., Vanik, L., & Bates, L. K. (2022). Disability justice and urban planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 23(1), 101–142.
Tasnim, S. (2021). Exploring the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on behavior and learning of children with special needs (Doctoral dissertation, Brac University).
Verdugo, M. A., Jenaro, C., Calvo, I., & Navas, P. (2017). Disability policy implementation from a cross-cultural perspective. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55(4), 234-246.
Wilson, D. (2022). Costly bodies: Examining long-term care and COVID-19 using autoethnography and critical discourse analysis.
write